Mad as Zell

Posted by: Michael

Mad as Zell - 09/03/04 04:56 PM

<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Mad as Zell - 09/03/04 04:57 PM

That was one fantastic speech!<br><br>GO ZELL GO!!<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Mad as Zell - 09/03/04 04:58 PM

Borrowed this from Gary's post in the Lounge.<br><br>It was an open source speech, I guess.<br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by yoyo52 on 09/03/04 07:59 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: Michael

Re: Mad as Zell - 09/03/04 04:59 PM

Yes it was. I missed it due to an other engagement. But, luckily I was able to download a video of it today. So I made that little montage.<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Mad as Zell - 09/03/04 05:01 PM

I've never seen a more passionate political speech . . . ever.<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: Michael

Re: Mad as Zell - 09/03/04 05:03 PM

Ya I saw that post too. I love how snopes is the final authority on everything. Ofcourse both sides spin the truth to meet their agenda. I would much rather here Kerry make a defense of his 20 year voting record. Perhaps when the debates start he will. But, I thought maybe at the DNC he would. [shrugs]<br><br>
Posted by: srumrill

Re: Mad as Zell - 09/03/04 06:29 PM

Well, they finally posted it on the iTunes music store. So you can listen to it over and over again. I know I will.<br><br>I've still listen to Obama's speech every once and a while too.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Mad as Zell - 09/03/04 07:29 PM

Don't like Snopes (oddly that's the site that Dean, for instance, always cites to debunk posts, but so be it)?<br><br>Try the Washington Post story today:<br><br>[color:blue]GOP Prism Distorts Some Kerry Positions<br><br><br>By Glenn Kessler and Dan Morgan<br>Washington Post Staff Writers<br>Friday, September 3, 2004; Page A01<br><br>Speakers at this week's Republican convention have relentlessly attacked John F. Kerry for statements he has made and votes he has taken in his long political career, but a number of their specific claims -- such as his votes on military programs -- are at best selective and in many cases stripped of their context, according to a review of the documentation provided by the Bush campaign.<br><br>As a senator, Kerry has long been skeptical of big-ticket weapons systems, especially when measured against rising budget deficits, and to some extent he opened himself to this line of attack when he chose to largely skip over his Senate career during his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention last month. But the barrage by Republicans at their own convention has often misportrayed statements or votes that are years, if not decades, old.<br><br>For instance:<br><br>• Kerry did not cast a series of votes against individual weapons systems, as Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) suggested in a slashing convention speech in New York late Wednesday, but instead Kerry voted against a Pentagon spending package in 1990 as part of deliberations over restructuring and downsizing the military in the post-Cold War era.<br><br>• Both Vice President Cheney and Miller have said that Kerry would like to see U.S. troops deployed only at the direction of the United Nations, with Cheney noting that the remark had been made at the start of Kerry's political career. This refers to a statement made nearly 35 years ago, when Kerry gave an interview to the Harvard Crimson, 10 months after he had returned from the Vietnam War angry and disillusioned by his experiences there. (President Bush at the time was in the Air National Guard, about to earn his wings.)<br><br>• President Bush, Cheney and Miller faulted Kerry for voting against body armor for troops in Iraq. But much of the funding for body armor was added to the bill by House Democrats, not the administration, and Kerry's vote against the entire bill was rooted in a dispute with the administration over how to pay for $20 billion earmarked for reconstruction of Iraq.<br><br>In remarks prepared for delivery last night, Kerry denounced the Republican convention for its "anger and distortion" and criticized Cheney for avoiding the military draft during the Vietnam era.<br><br>Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt defended the statements made by convention speakers, though he declined to address details beyond supplying the campaign's citations of votes. "Whether it was in the '70s, '80s or '90s, Sen. Kerry has demonstrated a general pattern of hostility to a strong national defense," Holt said.<br><br>Votes cast by lawmakers are often twisted by political opponents, and both political parties are adept at combing through legislative records to score political points. Former senator Robert J. Dole's voting record was frequently distorted by the Clinton campaign eight years ago -- as well as by his GOP rivals for the Republican nomination.<br><br>One document frequently cited by Republicans is a 350-word article in the Boston Globe, written when Kerry was lieutenant governor of Massachusetts and battling to win the Democratic nomination for senator in 1984 -- a period of soaring deficits in the wake of a huge defense buildup by President Ronald Reagan. Calling for a "strong defense," the article said, Kerry proposed to slow the rate of growth in defense spending by canceling 27 weapons systems, in part to reduce the deficit and also restore cuts Reagan had made in domestic programs.<br><br>While Cheney said Kerry opposed Reagan's "major defense initiatives," the campaign does not cite any votes against such defense programs while Reagan was president, relying instead on a campaign speech before he was elected senator.<br><br>Six years later, Kerry took part in a complex and serious debate in Congress over how to restructure the military after the Cold War.<br><br>Cheney, at the time defense secretary, had scolded Congress for keeping alive such programs as the F-14 and F-16 jet fighters that he wanted to eliminate. Miller said in his speech that Kerry had foolishly opposed both the weapons systems and would have left the military armed with "spitballs." During that same debate, President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, proposed shutting down production of the B-2 bomber -- another weapons system cited by Miller -- and pledged to cut defense spending by 30 percent in eight years.<br><br>Though Miller recited a long list of weapons systems, Kerry did not vote against these specific weapons on the floor of the Senate during this period. Instead, he voted against an omnibus defense spending bill that would have funded all these programs; it is this vote that forms the crux of the GOP case that he "opposed" these programs.<br><br>On the Senate floor, Kerry cast his vote in terms of fiscal concerns, saying the defense bill did not "represent sound budgetary policy" in a time of "extreme budget austerity." Much like Bush's father, he singled out the B-2 bomber for specific attention, saying it is "one of the most costly, waste-ridden programs in a long history of waste, fraud and abuse scandals that have plagued Pentagon spending."<br><br>Asked why the campaign was attacking Kerry for having similar positions as Cheney, White House communications director Dan Bartlett responded: "I don't have the specifics of [when] then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney was in charge of the Pentagon, but I think we'd be more than willing to have a debate on whether Dick Cheney or John Kerry was stronger on defense."<br><br>Appearing on CNN, Miller said he had "gotten documentation on every single one of those votes that I talked about."<br><br>Cheney, in his own speech, skipped over that period, going directly from Kerry's vote against authorization for the first Persian Gulf War to the post-Sept. 11, 2001, period.<br><br>Republican documents also cite a long list of Kerry votes against various weapons systems, including the B-2 bomber. But Kerry's opposition in the 1990s often hinged on his concerns about the impact on the budget deficit of congressional efforts to add money for the plane.<br><br>"We are going to build B-2 bombers even though the Pentagon does not want the B-2 bombers, even though the Pentagon never submitted a request for the B-2 bombers," Kerry said during a budget debate in October 1995.<br><br>Kerry's vote last year against the administration's $87 billion proposal to fund troops in Iraq and pay for Iraqi reconstruction has also been the focus of Republican attacks. "My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor," Bush said last night.<br><br>Kerry actually supported all those things, but as part of a different version of the bill opposed by the administration. At the time, many Republicans were uncomfortable with the administration's plans and the White House had to threaten a veto against the congressional version to bring reluctant lawmakers in line.<br><br>In a floor statement explaining his vote, Kerry said he favored the $67 billion for the troops on the ground -- "I support our troops in Iraq and their mission" -- but faulted the administration's $20 billion request for reconstruction. He complained that administration "has only given us a set of goals and vague timetables, not a detailed plan."<br><br>Yesterday, the State Department said that only $1 billion of that money has been spent in the 11 months since the bill was passed.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Zell plagarized even more! - 09/03/04 08:44 PM

First it was email hoax letter, now this. It was obviously a powerful keynote speech for the faithfull, so whatever works. <br><br><br>Zell Miller's speech (exerpt):<br><br>It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.<br><br>It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.<br><br><br><br> It is the Soldier by Father Dennis Edward O'Brien<br><br>It is the Soldier,<br>not the reporter who has given us freedom of press<br><br>It is the Soldier,<br>not the poet who has given us freedom of speech<br><br>It is the Soldier,<br>not the campus organizer who gives us freedom to demonstrate<br><br>It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,<br>who serves beneath the flag,<br>and whose coffin is draped by the flag,<br>who allows the protester to burn the flag.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Mad as Zell - 09/03/04 08:52 PM

Snopes is cool I just don't think they should be handling the political stuff just the normal phony internet rumors. If Snopes is getting questions about political emails and such they should just refer people to places like Spinsanity..<br>What don't you like about Snopes?<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Mad as Zell - 09/03/04 08:55 PM

I have nothing at all against Snopes, but was responding to the dismissive tone of Michael's post. I appreciate it when you debunk stuff by referring us to Snopes, in fact--a good, valuable thing you do.<br><br>
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Zell plagarized even more! - 09/03/04 09:32 PM

"Zell plagarized even more!"<br><br>You forgot something.<br><br> For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. <br><br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: garyW

Re: Zell plagarized even more! - 09/03/04 09:39 PM

okay. you're right. that makes it better. I am humbled. <br><br>But Zell still scares the hell out of me.
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Mad as Zell - 09/03/04 09:48 PM

Ahhh, I see. Cool.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Zell plagarized even more! - 09/03/04 09:52 PM

"But Zell still scares the hell out of me."<br><br>Perhaps it's the subject matter that scares you?<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: garyW

Re: Zell plagarized even more! - 09/03/04 10:02 PM

That and the spittle. I posted right after the keynote speech my comment that once we find Osama, he should be put into a caged duel match to the finish with Zell....and throw Saddam in there too just to give ol' Zell a challenge. <br><br>I don't want to spend my evening going down the list of Zell's accusations. I could post a list debunking them, you'll post a list supporting them. Zell's your hero, I can respect that. To me, he's everything that's wrong with politics today wrapped up into one tense, raging little package.<br><br>Also, to me, Barack Obama is everything that's right with politics today. That's where I stand.<br>
Posted by: Michael

Re: Zell plagarized even more! - 09/03/04 10:13 PM

And I believe politicians should be passionate. Even if I disagree with them. Not lick your finger and stick it in the political wind a la Clinton and Kerry types..<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

hope vs. rage - 09/03/04 10:43 PM

" lick your finger and stick it in the political wind" is exactly how I see Zell. I know, 9/11 changed everything. Besides the issue of truthfulness and accuracy in his performance, where you see "passion" I see rage and bitterness from an angry dixiecrat. His praise of Kerry a few years back has now shifted 180 degrees in the political wind. The democratic party didn't leave Zell, he left the party.<br><br>Did his speech make you angry or hopeful? He is an old tough marine ready for battle again, no doubt about it. The keynote address is to define the "heart and soul" and identity of the party. Zell made a hellraiser performance and the emotion was there for sure. I feel that this time in our history requires hope and unity to build a secure nation free from our enemies' threats, not rage and aggression toward the other half of American that believes in the democratic party. <br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/04/04 07:14 AM

Zell also has told a story of how he was at a democratic party meeting and they were discussing how the democratic party could use the formation of the TSA to pay off the unions. This was one of the things that made him so pissed at his party.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/04/04 07:32 AM

Zell gave an impassioned speech from his heart. The left is now trying to characterize and minimize his speech, with the media following along in complete complicity, as "hell-raising" and "rage-filled." Has the liberal media ever classified any of Al Gore's real ranting and raving speeches in this manner? Have you? <br><br>Have you condemned Al Gore's speeches, the outrageous things he has said? Have you said we need to build a secure nation free from enemies threats, not rage and aggression toward the other half of Americans who believe in the Republican Party? Have you?<br><br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: Michael

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/04/04 08:05 AM

<br><br>
Posted by: alAnonymous

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/04/04 11:40 AM

Uhm. Does he HAVE to? If so...WHY? To satisfy you? Isn't it possible to have a valid opinion without having to resort to hollow apologies like being "equal" in application of criticsm? If that's the case then it kind of contradicts supporting Miller.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/04/04 06:43 PM

There's also the minor point that truth doesn't have to be apologized for. It's true that Mr. Bush took us into a war that ultimately had no justification. It's true the Mr. Bush is not so slowly but very surely dismantling environmental laws. It's true that Mr. Bush has made the whole world more vulnerable to terrorism and made terrorists more attractive to more people by confusing Iraq with al Qaeda and making Iraq a new center for attracting and training terrorists. It's true that Mr. Bush has screwed up the US budget. It's true that Mr. Bush has reengaged "culture war" kinds of issues (gays and gay marriage, abortion, bare-breasted statues in public places for God's sake).<br><br>At least that's the truth from my angle. And why shouldn't Mr. Gore be angry, and voice his anger about those things? I'm pretty angry about it too, but my anger goes no further than a pretty small circle of friends. Let the person who has the ear of the public pull no punches.<br><br>An frankly, I don't think the following, quoted from Mr. Gore's convention speech, is even close to being angry enough:<br><br>[color:blue]It is in that spirit, that I sincerely ask those watching at home who supported President Bush four years ago: did you really get what you expected from the candidate you voted for?<br><br>Is our country more united today?<br><br>Or more divided?<br><br>Has the promise of compassionate conservatism been fulfilled?<br><br>Or do those words now ring hollow?<br><br>For that matter, are the economic policies really conservative at all?<br><br>Did you expect, for example, the largest deficits in history? One after another? And the loss of more than a million jobs?<br><br>By the way, I know about the bad economy. I was the first one laid off. And while it's true that new jobs are being created, they're just not as good as the jobs people have lost. And incidentally, that's been true for me too.<br><br>Unfortunately, this is no joke for millions of Americans. And the real solutions require us to transcend partisanship.<br><br>So that's one reason why, even though we meet here as Democrats, we believe this is a time to reach beyond our party lines to Republicans as well.<br><br>I also ask tonight for the help of those who supported a third party candidate in 2000. I urge you to ask yourselves this question: Do you still believe that there was no difference between the candidates?<br><br>Are you troubled by the erosion of some of America's most basic civil liberties?<br><br>Are you worried that our environmental laws are being weakened and dismantled to allow vast increases in pollution that are contributing to a global climate crisis?<br><br>No matter how you voted in the last election, these are profound problems that all voters must take into account this November 2.<br><br>And of course, no challenge is more critical than the situation we confront in Iraq. Regardless of your opinion at the beginning of this war, isn't it now obvious that the way the war has been managed by the Administration has gotten us into very serious trouble?<br><br>Wouldn't we be better off with a new president who hasn't burned his bridges to our allies, and who could rebuild respect for America in the world?<br><br>Isn't cooperation with other nations crucial to solving our dilemma in Iraq? Isn't it also critical to defeating the terrorists?<br><br>We have to be crystal clear about the threat we face from terrorism. It is deadly. It is real. It is imminent.<br><br>But in order to protect our people, shouldn't we focus on the real source of this threat: The group that attacked us and is trying to attack us again al-Qaida, headed by Osama Bin Laden?<br><br>Wouldn't we be safer with a president who didn't insist on confusing al-Qaida with Iraq? Doesn't that divert too much of our attention away from the principal danger?</font color=blue><br><br>By contrast, what is Zell angry about? That in a democratic country there are people who disagree with the president and dare voice the disagreement? That in a democratic country there are people who don't agree with giving multi-billion dollar contracts to corporations without competitive bidding? Or is he just angry that Mr. Kerry can vote on weapons bills in the same was as Mr. Cheney did? Or is is he angry that someone can see the difference between two appropriations bills even though the sum involved in both is the same 87 billion dollars?<br><br>I know that there's a group that goes around hunting RINOs, people who deemed Republicans In Name Only. Bill Moyers' Now did a great bit on them last night. There is no democratic counterpart to that. But Mr. Mille does make you wonder why not.<br><br>
Posted by: Michael

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/04/04 08:42 PM

I voted for the Green Party candidate because they needed to get 5% of the vote to get federal funding and couldn't see myself voting for Gore or Bush, but I'll answer your questions.<br><br>[color:blue]It is in that spirit, that I sincerely ask those watching at home who supported President Bush four years ago: did you really get what you expected from the candidate you voted for? </font color=blue>He wasn't elected[color:blue]<br><br>Is our country more united today?</font color=blue>no[color:blue]<br><br>Or more divided?</font color=blue>no[color:blue]<br><br>Has the promise of compassionate conservatism been fulfilled?</font color=blue>no[color:blue]<br><br>Or do those words now ring hollow?</font color=blue>yes[color:blue]<br><br>For that matter, are the economic policies really conservative at all?</font color=blue>no[color:blue]<br><br>Did you expect, for example, the largest deficits in history? One after another?</font color=blue>yes[color:blue]<br><br>And the loss of more than a million jobs?</font color=blue>yes[color:blue]<br><br>By the way, I know about the bad economy. I was the first one laid off. And while it's true that new jobs are being created, they're just not as good as the jobs people have lost. And incidentally, that's been true for me too.</font color=blue>Me as well[color:blue]Unfortunately, this is no joke for millions of Americans. And the real solutions require us to transcend partisanship.<br><br>So that's one reason why, even though we meet here as Democrats, we believe this is a time to reach beyond our party lines to Republicans as well.<br><br>I also ask tonight for the help of those who supported a third party candidate in 2000. <br><br>I urge you to ask yourselves this question: Do you still believe that there was no difference between the candidates? </font color=blue>never did believe that[color:blue]<br><br>Are you troubled by the erosion of some of America's most basic civil liberties?</font color=blue>absolutely[color:blue]<br><br>Are you worried that our environmental laws are being weakened and dismantled to allow vast increases in pollution that are contributing to a global climate crisis?</font color=blue>no[color:blue]<br><br>No matter how you voted in the last election, these are profound problems that all voters must take into account this November 2.<br><br>And of course, no challenge is more critical than the situation we confront in Iraq. Regardless of your opinion at the beginning of this war, isn't it now obvious that the way the war has been managed by the Administration has gotten us into very serious trouble?</font color=blue>no[color:blue]<br><br>Wouldn't we be better off with a new president who hasn't burned his bridges to our allies, and who could rebuild respect for America in the world?</font color=blue>The only "bridges burned" where those who would never be allies anyway. The proverbial bridge was gone long ago.[color:blue]<br><br>Isn't cooperation with other nations crucial to solving our dilemma in Iraq? Isn't it also critical to defeating the terrorists?</font color=blue>Absolutely.[color:blue]<br><br>We have to be crystal clear about the threat we face from terrorism. It is deadly. It is real. It is imminent.</font color=blue>Agreed[color:blue]<br><br>But in order to protect our people, shouldn't we focus on the real source of this threat: The group that attacked us and is trying to attack us again al-Qaida, headed by Osama Bin Laden?</font color=blue>Yes[color:blue]<br><br>Wouldn't we be safer with a president who didn't insist on confusing al-Qaida with Iraq? Doesn't that divert too much of our attention away from the principal danger?</font color=blue>Since we over threw Iraq's government a long time ago no one is confusing a dictatorship that doesn't exist anymore with the task at hand.[color:blue]<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Mad as Zell - 09/04/04 08:49 PM

yoyo - thanks for the post. I'd seen it linked before, but hadn't wanted to register for (my home town paper!) the washington post.<br><br>neye<br><br>
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/04/04 09:13 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> It's true that Mr. Bush took us into a war that ultimately had no justification. It's true the Mr. Bush is not so slowly but very surely dismantling environmental laws. It's true that Mr. Bush has made the whole world more vulnerable to terrorism and made terrorists more attractive to more people by confusing Iraq with al Qaeda and making Iraq a new center for attracting and training terrorists. It's true that Mr. Bush has screwed up the US budget. It's true that Mr. Bush has reengaged "culture war" kinds of issues (gays and gay marriage, abortion, bare-breasted statues in public places for God's sake).<p><hr></blockquote><p>Truth? Who's truth? <br><br>It's also true that Saddam violated resolution after resolution from the UN security council. It's true that those resolutions came under Chapter VII of the UN charter which authorizes the use of force to enforce those resolutions. It's true that Iraq, on a daily basis, attacked UN aircraft patrolling the UN no fly Zones. It's true that Iraq entered into a policy of deception and obstruction of the UN weapons inspectors. All of those acts were supposed to be met with military force according to the UN's own charter. It's also true that Iraq tried to assassinate an ex-President of the United States. That sir is an act of War in anybodies book. At what point do we become justified? After there is another attack on the US? After thousands more American citizens are killed in their own cities? After he invades another one of our allies? What was our alternative? We could try to get the UN to act, but they were unable to act for 12 years. What realistic hope do we have that they would act now when they refused to enforce their own resolutions. Sanctions? There were already draconian sanctions in place that were not working. We could assume a nonaggression policy in the hopes of not inflaming the situation. President Clinton took that road and we all saw the results of that. So at what point do we become justified???? <br><br>You say he has made the whole world more vulnerable to terrorism, yet we haven't been attacked again. The leadership of Al Quiada is slowly being torn apart. Yes we have made people mad at us, but they were already mad at us as evidenced by 9/11. Being pissed off at the United States, and being able to do something about it are two different things. To be effective terrorists need some kind of nation state support, both financially and for bases to operate and train freely. By removing sources of that support we remove their capability to act. But suppose we had not attacked Iraq. Would that have prevented another attack on the US. Again I turn to the policies of the past, were we didn't act for fear of generating more hatred of the US. That never slowed them down. The years leading up to 9/11 saw unprecedented levels of terrorist attacks on us interests and people. The two embassies in Africa, the USS Cole in Yemen, and ultimately the World Trade Center in NYC and the Pentagon in Washington. At the time of those attacks we were not occupying a foreign nation. The Arab world was standing with the UN on Iraqi sanctions, and President Clinton had brokered one of the most sweeping peace agreements ever seen in the middle east. Yet we were still attacked. Why? Because terrorists exist to hate. They will hate us no matter what we do. Their leaders will continue to use their rhetoric to build followers. We could try to give in to their demands. We could walk away from Israel and abandon the middle east, but then what. If terrorists don't have anyone to hate, then they become irrelevant. Do you honestly believe that the likes of Osama Bin Lauden would allow himself to become irrelevant? No! He would find something else to hate us for, and he would be emboldened by his ability to change US policy by attacking us. If you give a bully a dollar today, he will come back looking for two dollars tomorrow.<br><br>As for the budget, I dare say if we were not attacked then we wouldn't be spending the kind of money we have been spending, so is it really Bush's fault or the guys who attacked out country? And as far as the "culture wars", well the nation has been split over these issues for years. We were split over them under the President Clinton, and we are split now. I can promise you that the conservatives were as angered by President Clinton's policies as the liberals are angered by President Bush's policies. It has nothing to do with the individual man. It has to do with what the people see as right and wrong. <br><br>So again I ask what is truth? Or is it more a matter of point of view?<br><br>Oh and I think Zell was "off da chain". Just a little too much anger for me, but then I'm not voting for Zell Miller.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/05/04 09:14 AM

Absolutely right, Larry--like I said, it's the truth from the angle that my window makes on the street in front of my house. I could answer your points, and you could then answer mine, and so on and so on. But my real point was this: Mr. Gore did not tear Mr. Bush apart in his convention speech. He did talk about things that Mr. Bush had done that, for Mr. Gore (and for me), seem a problem at least, and disastrous at worst. He didn't say that Mr. Bush was unfit for command. He didn't say that Mr. Bush is a coward or a liar or a cheat or a flip flopper or a profiteer or a . . . .<br><br>And, frankly, I wish someone would. If the Republicans are going to take that road, then failing to respond in kind guarantees that people who have an attention span carefully nurtured by Sesame Street (very very bried, and responding only to Flash) will have only the one perspective. <br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/05/04 10:05 AM

It is in that spirit, that I sincerely ask those watching at home who supported President Bush four years ago: did you really get what you expected from the candidate you voted for? - For the most part yes. And is he disappointing enough to voter for Kerry, absolutely NO!<br><br>Is our country more united today? - No it is not and I blame the Democratic party for that.<br><br>Or more divided? - More divided, see above.<br><br>Has the promise of compassionate conservatism been fulfilled? - I don't know what that means. I was unaware there was such a thing as non-compassionate conservatism.<br><br>Or do those words now ring hollow? - No, see above.<br><br>For that matter, are the economic policies really conservative at all? - Yes and no. Tax decrease, yes many other no.<br><br>Did you expect, for example, the largest deficits in history? One after another? And the loss of more than a million jobs? Yes, we were going into an economic downturn just like the country has time and time again during the normal course of the business cycle. This coupled with the devastating impacts of 9/11 and the correct decision to defend the country from further attacks make our current economic situation not very surprising.<br><br>By the way, I know about the bad economy. I was the first one laid off. And while it's true that new jobs are being created, they're just not as good as the jobs people have lost. And incidentally, that's been true for me too. - I do personally feel bad that you now have a job that offers less than your previous job but that doesn't translate into some sort of fact that the entire country is in some sort of horrible economy.<br><br>Unfortunately, this is no joke for millions of Americans. And the real solutions require us to transcend partisanship. - Good then the democrats can jump on board. Usually when I hear a democrat say something like "transcend partisanship" they mean do what we want to do.<br><br>So that's one reason why, even though we meet here as Democrats, we believe this is a time to reach beyond our party lines to Republicans as well.<br><br>I also ask tonight for the help of those who supported a third party candidate in 2000. I urge you to ask yourselves this question: Do you still believe that there was no difference between the candidates?<br><br>Are you troubled by the erosion of some of America's most basic civil liberties? - And what are those? And how were they eroded?<br><br>Are you worried that our environmental laws are being weakened and dismantled to allow vast increases in pollution that are contributing to a global climate crisis? And what laws were passed that did this?<br><br>No matter how you voted in the last election, these are profound problems that all voters must take into account this November 2.<br><br>And of course, no challenge is more critical than the situation we confront in Iraq. Regardless of your opinion at the beginning of this war, isn't it now obvious that the way the war has been managed by the Administration has gotten us into very serious trouble? - No.<br><br>Wouldn't we be better off with a new president who hasn't burned his bridges to our allies, and who could rebuild respect for America in the world? - No.<br><br>Isn't cooperation with other nations crucial to solving our dilemma in Iraq? Isn't it also critical to defeating the terrorists? - Yes, and we are cooperating.<br><br>We have to be crystal clear about the threat we face from terrorism. It is deadly. It is real. It is imminent.<br><br>But in order to protect our people, shouldn't we focus on the real source of this threat: The group that attacked us and is trying to attack us again al-Qaida, headed by Osama Bin Laden? - No, we need to focus on the entire terrorist threat not just al-Qaida. This is the main problem with democrats, their narrow mindedness on terrorism.<br><br>Wouldn't we be safer with a president who didn't insist on confusing al-Qaida with Iraq? Doesn't that divert too much of our attention away from the principal danger? - The principal danger is terrorism no just al-Qaida. Here in lies the problem with the democratic party.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/05/04 10:46 AM

Your window gives on a different street, Dean--what can I say. And to repeat my central point again: if you can lambaste the dems because they see a different street, why can't the dems lambaste the reps because they see a different street? One is presented as legitimate political discourse, the other as mere Bush bashing.<br><br>
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/05/04 07:15 PM

To be honest Yo, that's when I tune them all out. I want to know the politician's positions, and I will listen to their speaches to get a feel for the individual, but I don't pay attention to the mud slinging.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: sean

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/05/04 08:36 PM

then, you will enjoy kerry's website. he explains many positions and does very little mudslinging, by comparison. unfortunately, most people are lazy enough to hope they will get full explanations from quick sound-bites while at the same time sitting back and complaining that the candidates aren't telling them enough about the issues they want to know more about. <br><br>"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a—you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." dubya 8.6.04
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/06/04 07:33 AM

Actually Sean I spent an afternoon reading through Kerry's web site. I also read the detailed briefs on his proposed programs. The problem is I don't agree with alot of what he wants to do. His national health care proposals really scare me, after seeing what has happened here in TN with the TennCare program. Plus after reading through the info on Tax Policy Center. org I don't care for his tax proposals either. His Tax numbers show an increase in taxes on the rich, nothing for the middle class, and a decrease in taxes for the poor. All that and a net loss in federal revenue. So the middle class gets no tax break, we have a net loss in federal revenue, and several new programs including a huge new entitlement program. That on top of the debt. What's he going to cut?? If he runs true to form it could be the military budget. Many of the people I know involved in FEMA and homeland security are convinced he's going to make huge cuts in homeland security. That's all speculation, but the bottom line is that with a net revenue loss for the federal govt. he's going to have to either make some deep cuts or raise taxes on the middle class. I can't see how he plans to pay these programs otherwise.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: polymerase

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/06/04 07:51 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> What's he going to cut??<p><hr></blockquote><p> What is Kerry going to cut? Why don't we ask what Bush has cut in the last four years. Nada, zip, zero. He hasn't met an entitlement or government program he didn't sign on the dotted line. The only thing he has cut is environmental regulations. But that doesn't do much for the deficit.<br><br>Oh I guess cutting taxes for the very rich counts. We're all going to be enjoying those soon when we win the lottery.<br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/06/04 08:24 AM

I agree he hasn't made the cuts he should have, but man you really need to look at the hard tax numbers when it comes to the tax cut. I recomend this site http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/home/ <br><br>They are non profit, & non political. What I have found is that when you look at the had numbers, it becomes clear that the rhetoric about the tax cut only going to the very rich is just that, a bunch of rhetoric and political hype designed to get votes. Bushes tax cut was an across the board tax cut with EVERY income level getting a piece of the cut based on how much the pay in taxes. <br><br><br><br>The truth is it was a very fair tax cut, with the people paying the most taxes getting more back than people who pay the least taxes. Under Kerry's plan (and you can find the tables at the web site) only the lowest income levels get a break. The middle class doesn't get sqwat, and the rich get hammered. That just isn't fair, and it isn't right to punish a person for working hard and being successful.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: polymerase

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/06/04 08:52 AM

Say what? From the site you suggested it says the opposite of what you stated. The site says that Bush's tax cut was unfair and was slanted toward the very affluent:<br><br>This use of averages paints a misleading picture of the impact of these tax cuts, however, repeating a strategy employed by the White House when it was trying to sell its original tax-cut plan.  Taken at face value, these average figures could imply that the tax cuts provide substantial benefits across a wide spectrum of the population; in reality, the final agreement’s tax cuts are heavily tilted toward the nation’s most affluent individuals and do little for the majority of U.S. households, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center*.<br><br>* your site suggestion.<br><br>But my arguments would be that there should be no tax cut at all unless you are going to cut some services. Bush has cut zero entitlements because he wants to get elected. On top of that he has added more entitlements. All he has done has cut taxes for the rich which does nothing but drive the deficit through the roof and raises the sea anchor of the national debt which will be tethered to our future economy. He is eating our seed corn for votes today.<br><br>Kerry is the only one telling the truth. We cannot afford tax cuts. Our children cannot afford them because they will be paying for them 20 years from now. <br><br>Yes, Kerry has said in no uncertain terms that he is going to raise my taxes. Thank you Senator Kerry for actually telling the truth. I do not want a tax break. I want the national debt to be paid off instead of the entire world ending up holding the paper on our debt. The only recourse then would be to crank up inflation so our debt becomes cheaper. But that is as worthwhile as a dog chasing his own tail. It does not work.<br><br>Hope v Rage? Bush has fanned the flames of rage until he is in a tight corner. He says no to big government but he is all about big government. He says get government out of your life but he says the government should have the last say on stem cell research, abortion and marriage. Watch what he does, not what he says because they are usually diametrically opposed.<br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/06/04 08:58 AM

Do you have the link to the document, I would like to read through it please.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: sean

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/06/04 09:25 AM

i heard kerry at a stump talk about homeland security and how the money is not not being distributed correctly. he said that cities should receive more than rural areas. he didn't say he was going to cut homeland security, but reading between the lines he is saying that he'll cut some funding to areas in wyoming and montana so that he can provide additional funding to NYC and memphis. obviously, he wants places that can suffer the most impact to have that much more funding to face the risks they face. so, your friend is probably right, but i suppose it depends on where you live as to whether this is good or bad for you.<br><br>and, the cato institute (libertarian -- very much conservative with regard to gov't spending) is claiming that bush is spending out of control. and, he is doing so even if you don't factor in defense. <a href="http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-09-04-2.html">link here</a><br>snippet:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Sadly, the Bush administration has consistently sacrificed sound policy to the god of political expediency. From farm subsidies to Medicare expansion, purchasing reelection votes has consistently trumped principle. In fact, what we have now is a president who spends like Carter and panders like Clinton. <p><hr></blockquote><p>and this comparison (non defense):<br><br><br>"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a—you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." dubya 8.6.04
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/06/04 09:31 AM

Ok I've got a bunch of reading to do today, but I may very well yield the floor ont he tax issue.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: polymerase

Re: hope vs. rage - 09/06/04 12:49 PM

No prob. Here is where I got the Brookings quote. <br><br>I was a bit slow because I was trying out a new kayak paddle and I think I just did 20 miles on the Sudbury river in less than three hours. I have to do a MapsRus to verify. I'm vibrating right now. <br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener